DOMA: the clash over marriage benefits

The Supreme Court will hear whether federal law can bar same-sex married couples from receiving the same benefits that heterosexual spouses do.

Richard Drew/AP
In this photo, Edith Windsor speaks during an interview late last year in her New York City apartment. Windsor has found some notoriety as her challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

The second major gay rights case at the Supreme Court involves a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

The law restricts the receipt of more than 1,100 federal benefits to man-woman marriages. In essence, DOMA bars same-sex married spouses from obtaining the same federal benefits received by heterosexual married spouses.

Same-sex couples argue that the federal restriction violates their right to equal treatment.

The issue arises in the case of New York resident Edith Windsor, who says she was wrongly denied a marital exemption from the federal estate tax because of her same-sex marriage.

Ms. Windsor and Thea Spyer lived together for 44 years and were formally married in Canada in 2007. Ms. Spyer died two years later.

Although their marriage was recognized as legal in their home state of New York, under DOMA the Internal Revenue Service did not consider their same-sex relationship a marriage. Without the marital exemption to the federal estate tax, Windsor owed $363,000 in federal estate taxes.

If the couple had been a man and a woman rather than two women, Windsor would have owed no federal tax.

A federal judge agreed with Windsor, and ruled that DOMA violated her constitutional rights. The Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, in a 2-to-1 decision, went even further. It found that gays and lesbians are entitled to a higher level of legal protection. Under that standard, DOMA must be struck down, the court said.

In his brief urging the court to overturn that decision, Washington lawyer Paul Clement says that Congress has the power to define marriage as part of a uniform system of distributing federal benefits and that the law is not discriminatory.

"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriages," Mr. Clement writes. "DOMA simply asserts the federal government's right as a separate sovereign to provide its own definition for purposes of its own federal programs and funding."

Lawyers for Windsor say that when states allow same-sex couples to marry, the federal government must recognize those unions as legal marriages and allow equal access to federal benefits for same-sex spouses.

"The question presented here is a narrow one: is there a sufficient federal interest in treating married gay couples differently from all other married couples for all purposes under federal law? There is not," Roberta Kaplan of New York writes in her brief urging the court to declare DOMA unconstitutional.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.